Slashdot Log In
P2P Scammers' Lawyers Attack Open Source Team
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Feb 26, 2008 08:06 AM
from the worst-are-full-of-passionate-intensity dept.
from the worst-are-full-of-passionate-intensity dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Late last year a company affiliated with the French RIAA hijacked the Shareaza.com domain name from the original, open source project's owner. They are passing off their own for-pay software, which violates the GPL, as the real thing. Now, having stolen the Shareaza project's identity, the scammers are threatening legal action to shut down the real open source team."
Related Stories
Submission: P2P Scammers Lawyers Attack Open Source Team by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
direct link (Score:2)
though I didn't find it very interesting..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I should say, that the comments that the lawyers were objecting to was a thread regarding setting up the real shareaza program to query the www.shareaza.com [shareaza.com] site in order to perform a distributed denial of service attack on it and put it under.
Of course, suggesting any such thing must be illegal, and organising such an attack even in retaliation is not going to be good for your karma.
IMHO they should just have changed the name of the program and got a new domain name
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:direct link (Score:4, Interesting)
History of the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet:
When it was first published in 1830 by Lars Johan Hierta, it was a tabloid that reported news and also criticised the new Swedish king Charles XIV John. The king stopped Aftonbladet from being printed and banned it, this was answered by starting the new newspaper "Det andra Aftonbladet" (The second Aftonbladet), which was subsequently banned, followed by new versions named in similar fashion until the newspaper had been renamed 26 times, after which it was allowed by the king. [1]
Kinda similar.
Parent
Re:direct link (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Don't do that! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Don't do that! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Don't do that! (Score:5, Funny)
Sean Connery? is that you?
Parent
maybe not accessible ... (Score:5, Informative)
Andy
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Reminds me of a story... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reminds me of a story... (Score:5, Informative)
A hundred years ago the same thing was happening here in the US. Intellectual property law enforcement was non-existent in practice. US companies were ripping off European IP and then grew to the point when they needed their own R&D to compete with other US companies doing the same thing. Oddly enough, right about the time when serious commercial research was starting to take off in the States, the US IP laws grew some real teeth.
History is a funny thing. It almost seems like it keeps repeating itself.
Parent
Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't skip that step. You're allowed to make GPL into closeware ("nobody but me is allowed to use it"), but you can't distribute it to others without sources.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway after digging around they rebranded their own client they use for their other networks thus didn't violate the GPL at all. Maybe the open source guys can register the name as a trademark and go after them that way.
Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First they work to strengthen copyright laws to the point that they make capital murder seem less a crime,
Stupid move. So, if you're accused of violating some copyright, maybe killing a lawyer or 2 may get out of the original charge (for lack of "witnesses"...), and you'll be stuck with the lesser charge of capital murder...
THEN they help a group which targets a GPL piece of software, and as we all know, the GPL utilizes the full strength of Copyright for it's own power...
Well, the only trouble is that the shysters didn't violate copyright law, but rather trademark law. These are not the same thing, (un)fortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting name... (Score:2, Funny)
Smoking in the licence agreement... (Score:5, Funny)
Smoking overall is bad for you. It gives you bad breath and may kill you sooner than you'd expect." - the licence agreement [shareaza.com]
All I can say is: WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me sick.
Not so black & white (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're violating the GPL then sue them for that, but don't complain if they come at you for something that's likely illegal where ever you live.
Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
ShareazaV4, is totally fake. It violates the open-source license, GPL (Version 2) in many ways. Also, it isn't free nor open source. It requires a subscription and installs a suspicious toolbar. You can read what happened from this reference list: http://tinyurl.com/2cx7ff [tinyurl.com]
.
Please, update your Shareaza version to Shareaza 2.3.1.0, and change the site from Shareaza.com to the new official site at Sourceforge: http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
The short version of why this is happening from the article:
A company trying to pass itself off as vendors of the open-source file-sharing software Shareaza, has set the legal dogs on the real Shareaza forum. Discordia Ltd, who earlier turned Bearshare and iMesh into pay services, demanded action after a member of the real Shareaza forum suggested a DOS attack on the site.
This is due to this suggestion by real shareaza forum user [66.102.9.104] :
Make it so the real shareaza program queries their site [shareaza.com] every couple of seconds. As an individual user this won't take much personal bandwidth. But all shareaza users worldwide put together should be enough to kill their server and they won't really be able to do much since it will be coming from so many different IPs.
The letter by the shyster hired by the thief/impersonator of the shareaza domain and project:
This law firm represents Discordia, Ltd., the operator of the website Shareaza.com and owner of the rights in the Shareaza branded software distributed from that domain. Please be advised, that your forum contains a string of posts under the title: "suggestion to kill Shareaza.com." Under the string, the poster, RedSquirrel offers directions for users of Shareaza software to implement a DoS that would have the effect of destroying or seriously impairing our client's application and network. The poster OldDeath also offers a manner to illegally attack our client's business.
Despite whatever complaints your forum's users may have with our client's proper and legal business activities, the type of activity promoted on your forum is illegal. Therefore, we request that you immediately remove this string of posts and any future strings of this nature. My client respects your users' rights to express their points of view. However, the line is crossed when users begin to promote the destruction of a legitimate business (evidently based on out some misguided belief that artists and others who create music should not be fairly compensated for their efforts) via illegal or other predatory means.
If the above cited illegal activity on your site does not immediately cease and desist, our client will take all necessary action to vigorously and relentlessly protect its rights. To be clear, if this action is not immediately taken and, as result, our client's business is harmed, we will not only pursue, locate and hold fully responsible each and every one of those who have implemented this, or any similar DoS, but also those responsible for maintaining your site and the forums.
Please confirm that the requested action is being taken immediately.
Jeffrey A. Kimmel
Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP
140 E. 45th St., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
(212) 655-3578
I suppose the law is in their hands in terms of a DDoS attack, so it would be more correct to sue the impersonator/thief for t
Re:Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and Meister Seelig needs to be very careful where he steps, so that he doesn't accidentally perjure himself by claiming rights that his clients doesn't have... In his first letter he seems to have avoided the obvious traps (... simply by not using the term "under penalty of perjury ...) but I'm sure that as soon as the action starts, and more letters become necessary, he will end up making a mistake.
The appropriate reaction to such a letter is to ask the shyster lawyers whether they are ready to uphold their claims under oath in front of a court of law...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PLEASE WIDELY PUBLICIZE MY CLIENTS AND CAUSE UNENDING DOS ATTACKS ON THEM.
Thank you,
Jeffrey A. Kimmel
Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP
140 E. 45th St., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Installing a suspicious toolbar has nothing to do with the GPL, but it does so under the disguise of the 'real' Shareaza project. This casts a shadow and causes problems to the real project.
3. DDOS attack is not necessary in this case, only a copyright / trademark lawsuit is necessary, but if a DDOS will make the thief/impersonator suffer in this case it is a good thing, it provides moral support to the real project's peopl
Looks like the DOS will happen after all (Score:2, Funny)
Turnabout is fair play (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Darn, now I have to RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
The French "Recording Industry Association of America? WTF?
Kdawson, please have some more coffee before you "edit" the next story, ok?
Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
"turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but, I'm also wondering about validity of the copyright claims of Discordia Ltd. At the bottom of the pages, it says either:
or
Apart from violating the GPL and infringing on trademarks/copyrights, they also make false/invalid (copyright) claims by stating copyright as of 1999. Isn't there a law against this as well?
its happened before on a grander scale.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Think I'm joking? I assure you I am not, here are some references...
http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800416910_1800007_NT_5c0424e2.HTM [eetindia.co.in]
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187200176 [eetimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/technology/01pirate.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/slick-pirates-seize-entire-brand/2006/05/29/1148754904830.html [smh.com.au]
The hardest thing is sometimes to persuade people that what they are doing in actually wrong in the first place, I guess this is the case with Shareaza.
One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... (Score:4, Funny)
Just declare war on them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a quick strings shows they do have the same parent (Score:5, Informative)
strings shareaza.exe gave loads and loads of function names error messages etc.
Downloaded the source from real shareaza (from sourceforge) ran grep against those names and everyone tried matched.
I need to try and do a proper comparasion, but IMHO the exe is created from the a branch of the open source 'true' version
What GPL code are they using? (Score:4, Insightful)
What GPL code are they using? Are they actually using some identifiable GPL code in their distributed software without complying with the GPL licensing requirements? Are they using the original SHAREAZA team's actual software (modified to do the nasty things)? All I see in the article are issues regarding an allegation of a stolen domain and an allegation of a plot to perform a distributed denial of service attack. If they did in fact make any use of GPL software without complying with the GPL licensing (such as making the source code available to anyone they distribute the software to), then by all means pursue legal remedies for that. Otherwise, the standing issues are the stolen domain and DDoS plot.
Oh, delicious irony. (Score:3, Funny)
"It's no surprise that emotions run high when people are ripped off..."
It's not getting "ripped off," it's SHARING!
Typical scammer behaviour (Score:5, Informative)
The original shareaza.com site resolves to an IP address (207.232.22.55) in New York, but listed with a fake front company with an Israeli ISP. The ISPs netvision.net.il and elron.net are known pink-contract, i.e. spammer friendly, hosting companies, they've been known to set up netblocks for spammers and run them until they are in every blacklist, then migrate in another netblock for the spammers. Most of the dodgy hosting is done in the U.S. and Russia. elron.net has been associated with the Russian Business Network, but a quick google doesn't turn up any easy links to back that up.
Someone posted above about shareazasecurity.be (195.47.247.137), but that goes to a server hosted in Denmark.
Although there is some mis-direction by throwing international company names into the mix (a classic scammer tactic), this appears to be mostly a U.S. based operation.
the AC
SCPP (Score:3, Informative)
page source shows all redirected - shareazaweb.com (Score:3, Informative)
DNS1=NETVISION.NET.IL
this is all in a hebrew-looking language and unreadable by me
DNS2=ELRON.NET
nowhere did I find in the list of companies they own for IT software does it list Shareaza
Many might already have noticed that Firefox flags this as a possible hijacked site and it sure looks like a strange partnership is behind this. IMO.
raw whois data:
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.
Domain Name: SHAREAZAWEB.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/ [godaddy.com]
Name Server: DNS.NETVISION.NET.IL
Name Server: NYPOP.ELRON.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 28-nov-2007
Creation Date: 22-nov-2007
Expiration Date: 22-nov-2008
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:28:26 UTC
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)